The Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Shakuntalam Associates Versus Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) -V, Commercial Tax And 2 Others, vide Writ Tax No. – 913 of 2022 dated 30.07.2025, held that technical defects in documentation, such as non-mention of the transporter’s name, cannot attract penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act in the absence of tax evasion intent. The writ petition was allowed.
Facts of the Case: The petitioner transported goods accompanied by valid documents including tax invoice, e-way bill, and bilty. However, the e-way bill did not mention the name of the transporter, though the truck number and other details were present.
During transit, the goods were detained and seized by the authorities under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act, based on the ground that the transporter’s name was not mentioned and that the goods were allegedly headed to Ghaziabad, not Delhi. The truck driver’s statement, recorded at the time of interception, suggested the destination was Ghaziabad. However, in the appeal, the petitioner clarified that the goods were taken temporarily to a godown to facilitate full truck loading before dispatch to the final destination in Delhi.
The appellate authority rejected the appeal, ignoring the explanation and upholding the penalty order.
The petitioner relied on tax invoices, GRs, and e-way bill entries that mentioned Chikamberpur, Delhi as the destination, and contended that there was no intent to evade tax and the error was technical in nature.
Issue: Whether non-mention of the transporter’s name on the e-way bill and a temporary halt of goods at a transport hub justified penalty proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act, in the absence of intent to evade tax
Held that: The High Court observed that the goods were indeed transported from Delhi to Delhi, as evidenced by the tax invoice, GR, and e-way bill. The e-way bill contained the truck number and relevant details, except for the transporter’s name. The driver’s statement was not conclusive and was later clarified. There was no finding or evidence of intent to evade tax.
The Court cited its earlier rulings in Varun Beverages Ltd. v. State of U.P. and the Supreme Court judgment in Asst. Commissioner (ST) v. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd.
The Court reiterated that mere procedural lapses do not warrant penalty under Section 129 without a clear finding of intent to evade tax. Consequently, the Court quashed both the adjudication and appellate orders.
To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 1671
